Linguistic Nationalism or Cultural Overreach? A Constitutional Analysis of Forced Marathi Speaking in Maharashtra

INDEX

1. Introduction
2. Linguistic Identity in the Indian Constitutional Framework
3. Freedom of Expression and Language Choice
4. Article 21 and the Right to Personal and Cultural Autonomy
5. The Maharashtra Language Mandate: A Case of Coerced Uniformity
6. Case Law Analysis: Federation of Retail Traders, T.M.A Pai & Beyond
7. Compelled Speech and Proportionality: A Constitutional Mismatch
8. Linguistic Nationalism vs Democratic Pluralism
9. Possible Solutions and Constitutional Balancing
10. Conclusion

SYNOPSIS

The article examines the increasing imposition of Marathi as a compulsory language for communication and signage in Maharashtra. It critiques this linguistic enforcement through the lens of constitutional rights—primarily Articles 19 and 21—while grounding its analysis in landmark Supreme Court cases like T.M.A. Pai Foundation, National Legal Services Authority, and Modern Dental College. 

The piece evaluates how Maharashtra's attempts to assert linguistic identity may, in effect, curtail the linguistic freedoms and dignitary rights of residents who are non-Marathi speakers. It ultimately argues that while linguistic pride is constitutionally protected, state-enforced conformity undermines India’s pluralistic federalism and cultural freedoms. Judicial responses are discussed, particularly in light of the Bombay High Court's upholding of the Marathi signage mandate. The article advocates a rights-based, proportional approach that celebrates regional languages without coercing speech or identity.

Introduction

The Indian Constitution, with all its federal complexity and linguistic diversity, is a testament to the nation's embracing of diversity as opposed to suppressing it. While in other states, such as Maharashtra, the trend of imposing the use of Marathi, be it on shop signs, municipal services, or commercial activity, poses constitutional issues regarding the extent of State authority to control language, there is no inherent issue with encouraging Marathi to be the regional language. 

The practice of "forced speaking" via coercive controls betrays India's history of upholding linguistic freedom. Recent orders by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and statewide attempts at making Marathi supreme in signage and speech as well have set off controversy. The critics say that this not only trespasses on the fundamental rights of non-Marathi-speaking residents but also encourages unnecessary linguistic chauvinism. This piece of writing discusses whether the imposition of Marathi by the State of Maharashtra is constitutionally sound, or if it is a threat to democratic pluralism itself.

The Constitutional Right to Linguistic Freedom

Right to linguistic freedom is greatly entrenched in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. It is not just the right to speak but also the right to choose the language of expression. In State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Primary and Secondary Schools, the Supreme Court has held that the freedom of expression has accompanying to it the freedom of choice of medium of communication and instruction. 

While the State may promote regional languages, any effort to implement them compulsorily without provision for accommodation of another language violates this constitutional safeguard. The Court determined that "the freedom under Article 19(1)(a) also includes the right to choose the language for communication" (para 21), and that the State's decision to make Kannada the exclusive language of instruction for primary school children violated Article 19(1)(a).

In another such landmark case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, the court emphasised that every individual and institution has an inherent right to linguistic autonomy.  

The said explanations collectively suggest that any such policy seeking to enforce substitution of one's desired language of communication with another, particularly in commercial or personal domains, cannot be upheld constitutionally unless it passes the test of Article 19(2) and is in proportion.

Article 21, Human Dignity, and the Right to Cultural Autonomy

Article 21, ensuring the right to life and liberty, has been judicially interpreted to embrace the right to life in dignity, culture, and individual autonomy. The right to cultural self-identification was seen by the Supreme Court to be an essential constituent of Article 21 in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India. 

Although gender identity formed the backdrop of the case, the liberal interpretation of the judgment would support that the concept of personal dignity would be understood as including a right to maintain their linguistic identity without State coercion. In para 75, the Court noted: "The expression of one's identity, cultural or personal, lies at the heart of human dignity protected under Article 21."

Compelling people to communicate in a language other than their own—or requiring commercial expression only in one particular language—dilutes that freedom. Speaking or not speaking a language is not a mechanical task; it's closely connected with identity, comfort, and individual freedom. Any incursion into that realm on the part of the State must hence be held up to the highest constitutional scrutiny.

Maharashtra's Statutory Framework and Recent Compulsions

The Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 was again amended in the year 2022 to enact that all shops shall install signboards in Marathi and Devanagari script in a prominent manner. While the amendment does not prohibit the use of other languages, it enacts that Marathi will have to be used by necessity first and shall be more prominent than other languages. 

This might seem facially neutral, but in the context of being joined with threats of punishment and revocation of licences for non-obedience—as some BMC circulars have done so—it is starting to slide into the area of compelled speech.

In Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court held that the requirement of Marathi signage was valid. But the Court did not fully grapple with the proportionality or compelled speech issue. It only argued that if the law does not prohibit the use of other languages, it is not in breach of Article 19(1)(a). 

This line of reasoning falls short of the constitutional test set out in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, in which the Supreme Court categorically held that any limitation on fundamental rights has to meet the test of proportionality that includes legitimacy of purpose, reasonable nexus between ends and means, proportionality of the measure, and balancing of interest.

The Maharashtra legislation falters especially on the third and fourth limbs, as it intrudes into the expressive freedom and commercial autonomy of private individuals to force them to employ Marathi in a dominant manner on their own properties.

Compelled Speech and Constitutional Doctrine

The argument that individuals cannot be required to speak, display, or conform to state messages receives backing in Indian as well as foreign law. In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court held that forcing students to sing the national anthem on grounds contrary to their religion infringed their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25. The Court said, "The right to freedom of expression also implies the freedom not to speak or not to express." This obviously indicates that freedom of expression encompasses freedom from compelled speech.

The same logic was applied to the coerced use of Marathi as well as to coerce businesspeople or workers to speak or post messages in a language of their choice, and consequently, the argument follows that coercing them to do so is as much a compelled expression. The constitutional transgression further gains prominence when bolstered with enforcement provisions such as fines, licence denial, or social harassment, all of which render linguistic encouragement linguistic coercion.

Federalism, Politics of Language, and the State's Role

India's federal nature makes it possible for states to pick their own official languages according to Article 345. It is not an unlimited power. Article 347 makes it possible for the President to notice a requirement for another official language if the majority wants it. These provisions display a cautious constitutional balancing act: states can favor their languages, but not in a way that abolishes the linguistic diversity in them.

The actuality of Maharashtra in sociopolitical terms is highly multi-invested in cities such as Mumbai, Pune, and Nagpur with a densely populated core of Hindi, Gujarati, Urdu, English, and other language speakers. 

In such a situation, mandating Marathi as the de facto language of public life reverses what the Constitution seeks to bring about in terms of pluralistic value system; it disenfranchises sizeable constituencies of the people, in the process converting a cultural promotion effort into a majoritarian imposition.

Linguistic Nationalism vs Constitutional Morality

Encouragement of Marathi is not necessarily unconstitutional. In fact, the Constitution is aware of the preservation and promotion of local languages. But if this encouragement becomes forced compliance, the distinction between constitutional encouragement and cultural overreach gets distorted. The language of governance should not become the language of coercion.

The Supreme Court ruled in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India that plurality and secularism are essential components of the Constitution's fundamental framework. Having said that language is an essential component of a citizen's identity, much like religion or culture.  Just as it cannot impose a language, the state cannot impose a religion. The State must promote diversity rather than stifle it in accordance with constitutional morality.

FAQs

Q1: Is the use of Marathi signboards in Maharashtra compulsory by law?
Yes, under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, shops must display their names in Marathi (Devanagari script). The law was amended to make Marathi signage mandatory, even for outlets belonging to multinational chains or local shops that previously used English or Hindi.

Q2: Is this legally valid under the Constitution of India?
While the Bombay High Court upheld this mandate in Federation of Retail Traders Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra, serious constitutional questions remain. Critics argue that this requirement violates Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and Article 21 (right to personal liberty and dignity), especially when coupled with verbal enforcement or punitive action.

Q3: Can a state legally promote its regional language?
Yes. Article 345 empowers states to adopt their own official language. States can promote and even require their language in public administration or education to an extent. However, they cannot impose it in a manner that infringes on fundamental rights of linguistic minorities or private citizens.

Q4: Has the Supreme Court ruled on such linguistic enforcement?
The apex court hasn’t ruled directly on Maharashtra’s language law, but in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and State of Karnataka v. Associated Management of English Medium Schools, it strongly affirmed linguistic autonomy and struck down similar attempts by Karnataka to impose Kannada as a medium of instruction.

Q5: What is "compelled speech" and how is it relevant here?
Compelled speech refers to a situation where the state forces individuals to express themselves in a particular way, often against their will. In this case, forcing shopkeepers or residents to use Marathi can be seen as a form of compelled linguistic expression, which the Constitution guards against.

Q6: What’s the alternative to such imposition?
The State can encourage Marathi through incentives, cultural programs, education policies, and public signage campaigns without mandating it for private actors. A rights-based, promotional—not punitive—approach better aligns with constitutional values.

Q7: Is there any international comparison?
Yes, countries like Canada (especially Quebec) have language laws to promote French but also offer clear safeguards for minorities. However, even there, courts have intervened when enforcement went too far, striking down overbroad mandates that compelled private expression.

Q8: What is the solution moving forward?
India must walk a fine line between regional pride and coercion. Respecting linguistic diversity, especially in urban centers like Mumbai, requires a flexible, rights-conscious framework that avoids punitive enforcement of language laws.